In 2003 Dr David Kelly was found dead in the woods. Caught in a political vortex, Dr Kelly had been forced to appear before a televised government committee investigating whether he had accused British government figures of planting in a dossier the questionable claim that WMDs could be unleashed from Iraq in 45 minutes. The Hutton Inquiry concluded that Dr Kelly took his own life. But did he? This blog takes a closer look....
Contact: RowenaThursby@onetel.com

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

THE FORENSIC TESTIMONY: HIDDEN MESSAGES?

E-mail from a highly qualified UK pathologist (bold/coloured type from the author for emphasis):

I would like to point out three responses by forensic pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt to questions from Lord Hutton, (Hutton Report, pp 91-92) Hunt's first response is quoted thus - "There isno positive pathological evidence that this man had been subjected to asustained violent assault prior to his death". The second response is thus - "There wasno positive pathological evidence to indicate that he has been subjected to compression of the neck, such as by manual strangulation, ligature strangulation or the use of an arm hold." Hutton could have asked, "Am I to understand from your answer that if you included slightly less than positive pathological evidence, and violent assault had not been sustained, but still quite prolonged, then your conclusion could have been different?" The third response is thus - "No, there was no pathological evidence to indicate the involvement of a third party in Dr Kelly's death. Rather the features are quite typical, I would say, of self inflicted injury if one ignores all the other features of this case." What on earth did Hunt mean by that?We should also note that Hunt refers to self inflicted injury, not death. We have to conclude that Hutton did not pursue these curious statements because he did not want the real answer. Please draw these points in the Hutton Report to others who may be interested.

-------------------------------

To these points one might also add, the remarks of the forensic toxicologist, Mr Allan:

Q. Mr Allan, is there anything else which you know of which might have contributed to the circumstances ofDr Kelly's death?

A. From the toxicological point of view, no. [Why was he not asked what other, non-toxicological, observations he had?]

LORD HUTTON: Mr Allan, if a third party had wanted paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene to be found in Dr Kelly's blood is there any way that the third party could have brought that about by either persuading or forcing Dr Kelly to take tablets containing those two substances?

A. It is possible,but I think it would be.... [why was he not allowed to finish?]

LORD HUTTON: That is the only way that those substances could be found in the blood, by taking tablets containing them?

A. Yes, he has to ingest those tablets.

[Actually that is not true, he did not have to ingest the tablets - the two components of co-proxamol, dextropropoxyphene and paracetamol, are available in liquid form and can be administered by injection].